(As it looks it is more likely that there will be a sequel to the 91 Gulf War ('The Return of the Bushes'). I thought the article below might be of interest to some infocon readers. I would also recommend to have a look at the 'Lessons of Modern War Volume IV' which contains a brilliant 1000 page Analysis of the 91 Gulf War (for example Chapter 4 looks at C4I BM and Chapter 5 looks at Intelligence and Net Assessment) WEN). Published Aerospace Power Journal - Fall 2001
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Another View of the Myths of the Gulf War Lt Col Martin Wojtysiak, USAF Editorial Abstract: Colonel Wojtysiak revisits one of the more provocative articles published by APJ in recent years, Dr. Grant Hammond’s "Myths of the Gulf War: Some ‘Lessons’ Not to Learn" (Fall 1998). He evaluates Hammond’s 10 Gulf War "myths," discusses accuracies and inaccuracies, and concentrates on lessons learned. Since the Gulf War involved a first-rate air campaign, perhaps Dr. Hammond’s myths should be considered truths with asterisks. I am sorry to think that you do not get a man’s most effective criticism until you provoke him. Severe truth is expressed with some bitterness. —Henry David Thoreau As an active duty officer and Gulf War veteran, I found it sometimes difficult to discern between the criticism and provocation in Dr. Grant Hammond’s "Myths of the Gulf War: Some ‘Lessons’ Not to Learn," which appeared in the fall 1998 edition of Airpower Journal.1 "Myths" takes a recently all-too-familiar tone toward those who ballyhoo the successes of the Gulf War, particularly those of the much-heralded air campaign. Since Carl Builder’s The Icarus Syndrome was published in 1995, it has become fashionable within military intellectual circles to characterize airmen and airpower enthusiasts as overly enamored with their own high-altitude grandeur. The academic community portrays airmen as smitten by technology and incapable of learning the true lessons of the past, as they are blinded by the glimmer of their often-serendipitous successes. Perhaps these characterizations were justified after debacles such as the "high risk– low reward" World War II daylight bombing raids over Germany or the misdirected and benign Rolling Thunder campaign over Vietnam. These campaigns were long, drawn-out affairs with confusing objectives and questionable successes. But Operation Desert Storm was different and invigorating. In fact, the original name of the air campaign, "Instant Thunder," was intended to parody, and thus distance itself from, Rolling Thunder. This was a truly successful air war that paralyzed, incapacitated, and demoralized the enemy from the first sorties to the last on day 38—leaving only 100 hours of "mop-up" duty for the ground forces. The air campaign assured victory and effectively fulfilled Gen Billy Mitchell’s promise that, "If the matter ever came to fighting an overseas enemy, airpower could decisively attack the enemy’s vital centers without first defeating his armies or navies. Attacks on such vital targets would render war so decisive and quick that the total suffering would be less than otherwise."2 It was our Air Force’s finest moment, but it was more than a first-rate air campaign—it was also a remarkable war. Strategically speaking, the Gulf War stifled the greatest threat to Middle East stability in the last 25 years—Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Iraq’s barbarous invasion of Kuwait in 1990 exposed Saddam as exceedingly ambitious and violent, as well as a potentially permanent threat to the region. It seemed that his army had hardly rested from a brutal eight-year war with Iran when it invaded Iraq’s small, relatively defenseless neighbor and, perhaps inadvertently, seemed to threaten another in Saudi Arabia. The coalition of 38 countries, flying over 50,000 combat sorties in seven months and taking nearly 87,000 Iraqi prisoners of war, left Saddam isolated and his military reduced to virtual impotence outside of its own borders. Admittedly, he survived, but the Gulf War left Saddam Hussein in a strategic box from which there is no escape. Indeed, it seems that every now and then Saddam tests the limits of his box, only to be crushed back again by Operations Northern and Southern Watch. The Gulf War was not perfect by military standards. The United States did make clear strategic and tactical errors during the campaign. Dr. Hammond, as well as others, makes solid arguments when he discusses the blundered war-termination process, the fruitless "Scud Hunt,"3 and the intelligence miscues that resulted in a targeting process that sometimes lacked strategic effect. There are important lessons to be learned from our failures in the Gulf, but we must also recognize and learn from our successes. Dr. Hammond unfairly portrays the Gulf War as fraught with failures by occasionally exaggerating claims and offering his conclusions in lieu of arguments. His article crosses the line from constructive and thoughtful criticism to contrarian polemic, the net effect being a dilution of truly worthwhile lessons at the expense of extraneous chaff. More than two years have passed since "Myths" appeared in Airpower Journal. Using the advantage of this extra hindsight, this article reexamines the 10 "myths," separating true lessons from chaff. Each is discussed on its own merits, citing the valuable lessons but also highlighting the flawed logic and incomplete conclusions. The author suggests an opposing view of the achieved end state, including the ideas that Saddam’s survival was an acceptable result and that, overall, the United States retains an enhanced regional strategic advantage due to its successful efforts in the Gulf War. Myth Number One—It Was a War Dr. Hammond concedes that the Gulf War "was a war by definition" but claims that it was not a war in the classic sense because for most of the time, only one side fought. In support of this argument, he rightly points out that the United States suffered relatively few casualties in proportion to the total forces deployed, while most Iraqi air and ground forces chose to flee or surrender rather than fight.4 However, this line of reasoning discounts the strategic-paralysis premise of the air campaign and its apparent success against the Iraqi forces. The air campaign was designed to put the Iraqis in a position where they could not respond, thus minimizing coalition casualties. War is war—the one-sidedness of the Gulf War should not determine its status as war. Indeed, the 1939 German blitzkrieg of Poland was one-sided, but few would argue that it constituted something less than war. The renowned Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz defined war as an act of force to compel the enemy to do one’s will.5 This "classical" definition surely qualifies the Gulf War as a war. Saddam Hussein and his military were ejected from Kuwait by force and against their will—diplomacy did not effect the change; nor did the imposed sanctions. The coalition elected to use overwhelming force, which may have been more than necessary, but the level of force should not determine whether a conflict constitutes war. Myth Number Two—It’s Over Dr. Hammond contends that the war is not over because "its impact lingers on in many ways, and the region may be no more secure than it was eight years ago."6 His supporting arguments are that US forces remain in the region, the Iraqi military was not irreparably beaten, and Saddam’s rhetoric remains as antagonistic as ever. The following historical comparisons point out the need to maintain a strong military presence necessary to maintain the desired end state. Consider the strategic environment of post–World War II Europe or the Korean peninsula after 1952; decades after the victories, US troop strength in both regions remained in the hundreds of thousands. Indeed, for the second half of the last century, the entire US military essentially defined and justified itself in terms of maintaining the previously achieved end states after the two wars. The postwar end state was so important that it led to the theater military commanders in each theater being elevated to commander in chief (CINC) status. Our postwar presence in these two theaters, by any measure, overshadows the current US presence in the Gulf region. On the other hand, there was no US presence required following the Vietnam War, essentially because we lost that conflict and were obliged to leave. Perhaps a postwar peacekeeping presence is the price of victory— insurance to maintain the postwar end state. Historical precedent implies that it is not necessary to end a war by leaving the enemy’s army or regime in tatters. The excessively punitive measures of the post–World War I Treaty of Versailles led to the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich, thereby making World War II inevitable. But on the Korean peninsula, where the North Koreans maintained a powerful army and a venomously anti-US regime, deterrence succeeded for 50 years, allowing some healing of old wounds and possibly leading towards lasting peace. Iraq’s post-1991 army does not constitute the regional threat that North Korea presents; nor is Saddam Hussein any more hostile than President Kim Il Sung. Some may argue that the Korean parallel strengthens the claim that the Gulf War is not over, since the conflict ended only in armistice. Yet it would be difficult to contend that the Korean conflict never ended in either the classical or the conventional sense. Moreover, unlike the war against Iraq, the end of hostilities in Korea did not settle the underlying political issue that sparked the war. The question of whether the Gulf War is concluded or is in the process of concluding is less germane than whether or not the end state is leading to the US goal of regional stability. Myth Number Three—We Won Myth Number Four—We Accomplished Our Objectives It is difficult to argue these separately, since logic suggests that the side that accomplished more of its objectives is the winner. Dr. Hammond begins his discussion of "Myth Number Three" with the absurd statement that "we did not win politically or militarily, for we did not accomplish our objectives on either front."7 But his argument essentially boils down to the failure, in his view, to meet every objective. Specifically, he cites the realities that Saddam remains in power, that the Republican Guard forces were not effectively destroyed, and that Saddam still seeks to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In terms of achieving objectives, it is unreasonable to suggest that warring nations can guarantee the achievement of all objectives, political and military, when engaged in limited war. Unlike its attitude toward Germany and Japan in World War II, the United States never sought Iraq’s unconditional surrender. The best the United States could do in the Gulf was to prioritize its objectives and obtain as many as possible without fighting a total war or breaking up the coalition. Once the United States achieved its political objectives, one could argue that the military objectives became unnecessary. This was the situation in the Gulf War—the coalition was built on political objectives, and the military objectives varied by individual countries. Indeed, any coalition that included countries as diverse as the United States, the Soviet Union, and Syria could not be expected to agree on everything. The four political objectives, declared by President George Bush and reinforced by United Nations (UN) Security Council resolutions, included the unconditional and complete withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the restoration of Kuwait’s legitimate government, the reestablishment of security and stability of the Persian Gulf, and the protection of American citizens abroad.8 In the nearly 10 years since the end of the war, it is evident that the United States realized its objectives. Dr. Hammond contends that the first two were met but that the latter two "constitute an open-ended commitment that we may have to demonstrate again."9 Regional stability and protection of Americans are open-ended issues in many parts of the world today—so much so that our civilian and military leaders are now rethinking future force requirements. The open-ended commitments in the Gulf may prove to be vital, requiring and permitting a continuing US regional presence and influence in an area of vital geostrategic importance. Often cited as the most glaring failure of the Gulf War is the survival of Saddam Hussein and roughly half of his Republican Guard protectorate. While these were among the military objectives (Saddam was never mentioned individually, but his removal was implicit in the objectives and his known residences were targeted), their achievement likely would have jeopardized the coalition’s survival and the long-term US reputation in the region. To achieve them, a military march to Baghdad, outside the auspices of UN resolutions and with questionable coalition consent, probably would have been necessary. The likely end state would have been an uncertain Iraq and the possible disenfranchising of the United States as a powerful broker in future Gulf affairs. Instead of regarding this as a failure, one could argue that, by deciding to cease hostilities after meeting the political objectives (thus allowing Saddam and enough of the Republican Guard to escape), the United States wisely placed its political objectives ahead of all others. History suggests that this was a sensible choice. The continued US presence and its role in Gulf affairs are justified more by the continuance of Saddam’s regime than by any other single factor. Saddam may be bad for Iraq, but his continued hold on power arguably enhances regional influence by the United States. He is universally accepted as a regional "bad actor" amongst such disparate nations as Egypt, Israel, Iran, and the United States. Valuable regional US allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, remain committed to the US regional presence as long as Saddam’s containment remains a regional rallying point. These former coalition partners, either directly or tacitly, continue to support the US-led enforcement of Iraq’s no-fly zones. In fact, the United States is granted virtual carte blanche to contain Saddam in operations such as Desert Strike (1996) or Desert Fox (1998)—thus defining and limiting Iraq’s role in the regional balance of power. Saddam’s addiction to WMD, especially his quest for a nuclear device, remains an ongoing concern. Dr. Hammond simply restates a lesson definitively discussed in Eliot A. Cohen and Thomas A. Keaney’s Gulf War Air Power Survey (GWAPS) years earlier. The GWAPS identified intelligence miscalculations that led to targeting failures: "Overall, the United States did not fully understand the target arrays comprising Iraqi nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic missile capabilities before Desert Storm."10 Nevertheless, Ambassador Richard Butler, the UN weapons inspector, believes that the coalition was effective in this regard and reduced Iraq’s WMD capability by "at least an order of magnitude" during the Gulf War and then again in the Desert Fox raids of 1998.11 Urging continued vigilance by the United States and coalition members, Butler believes that Saddam will never abandon his pursuit of WMD. Myth Number Five—Technology (PGMs) Won the War Dr. Hammond’s claim that the statement "precision-guided munitions (PGM) won the war" constitutes a myth of the Gulf War seems dubious at best since no one seems to have made this declaration, outside of his article.12 The GWAPS does not assert that technology won the war, though it does cite five technologies that "worked best in the Gulf War," including "stealth/low observability, laser-guided bombs, aerial refueling, the high-speed antiradiation missile (HARM), and the secure telephone (STU-III)."13 Other Gulf War reviews have discussed the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the various technologies, but none have made the naïve assertion that the outcome would have been any different—absent PGMs or any other technology. Nevertheless, Dr. Hammond believes that the role of technology in the Gulf War, specifically that of stealth and PGMs, was overstated because they were used in relatively small numbers and our intelligence was not as accurate as our weapons. He reminds us that roughly 95 percent of the coalition ordnance consisted of "dumb" bombs dropped by nonstealth aircraft.14 These numbers are correct, but they tell only half of the story. According to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) final report to Congress on the Gulf War, stealth aircraft using PGM ordnance flew only two percent of the total attack sorties but struck about 40 percent of the strategic targets attacked. They were also the only aircraft to attack targets in downtown Baghdad (the area presenting the greatest threat area), hitting targets in all 12 categories.15 This remarkable performance validated the technology and led Maj Gen David Deptula, director of the Air Force Quadrennial Review and one of the key architects of the air war, to conclude that stealth technology and PGMs, combined with the effects-based targeting used in the Gulf, constituted no less than a revolution in military affairs.16 Whether it was a revolution or simply an evolution, technology made its impact on the Gulf War. The more important question is whether our technology has outpaced our intelligence capability. Dr. Hammond rightly posits that precision munitions are worthless without precision intelligence.17 The mistaken bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 underscores this argument and indicates that the United States may still have some catching up to do on the intelligence front. Myth Number Six—The "Vietnam Syndrome" Is Over: US Military Might and Prestige Are Restored The American public’s confidence in the military has nearly doubled since the aftermath of the Vietnam War. A Harris Poll conducted in January 2000 found that confidence in the military is higher than that of any other institution, including the medical profession or the legal profession, the latter epitomized by the Supreme Court.18 A second Harris Poll specifically addressed the issue of US military prestige over the last 20 years, showing that 70 percent of Americans felt military officers had "very great prestige" or "considerable prestige," the former at 42 percent (up from 22 percent in 1982).19 The success of the Gulf War was surely the primary reason for the changes in these numbers. Dr. Hammond points to the approximately 40 percent decrease in US military forces since 1990, arguing that the United States is less effective at deterring would-be aggressors and less likely to fight them than in the past.20 But connecting the Gulf War with the drawdown of the 1990s is misleading since it ignores the end of the Cold War. On 1 August 1990, the day before Iraq invaded Kuwait, President Bush was scheduled to announce upcoming "major cuts in US military forces."21 However, the speech was delayed due to diversions surrounding the impending invasion, and the cuts were officially announced during the budget battle of late 1990—months before the war. Indeed, the fact that the United States was able to execute the military drawdown in the aftermath of the Gulf War yet still keep Iraq in check is a testament to the level of US dominance. That said, Dr. Hammond rightly questioned whether the so-called Vietnam Syndrome is over, as President Bush claimed at the end of the Gulf War. In reality, the actions of the Bush administration and its top military leaders were clearly influenced, even preoccupied, by the ghosts of Vietnam.22 Unfortunately, this might have resulted in some of the poor decisions surrounding the bungled war termination. Clearly, the United States wanted to avoid a potential quagmire from an Iraqi civil war, but the decision to declare victory—unprecedented in that it came before the enemy requested terms, allowing the victorious soldiers to return to a hero’s welcome—was an overreaction to the Vietnam experience. The relative detachment of the Washington establishment (i.e., leaving the war fighting and peace negotiating to the theater CINC) reflected that experience. This was followed by the reactionary view that the postwar revolutionary uprisings in the north and south were a snare for a protracted US involvement. All these events fell into the category of "Vietnam’s lessons" applied inappropriately to the Gulf War. Had this series of mistakes not characterized the war-termination process, Saddam Hussein might have vanished as a troubling regional influence. Despite the lingering psychological effects of the Vietnam Syndrome, the actual military capability of the United States relative to the rest of the world stands in stunning contrast to that of the post-Vietnam era. After Vietnam, the United States stood conventionally outmanned and outgunned by the Soviets, and the short-term trend was getting worse. Since Vietnam, the United States has completed a major military buildup, achieved important victories in the Cold/Gulf Wars, and afterwards experienced a significant military drawdown. Currently, the United States has no peer competitor, and there appears to be none on the horizon—for a while at least. One can argue whether or not this means a safer world—but one cannot doubt the ability of the US military to respond when necessary. Myth Number Seven—We Can Do It Again If Necessary Desert Strike, Desert Fox, and—on a different continent—Operation Allied Force all demonstrated that the United States has the political will, international ties, and military strength to take forcible actions when necessary to achieve its objectives. But more impressive is simply the way we were able to pull off the Gulf War, considering our state of readiness for that conflict. The US military of 1990 was heavy, slow moving, and tailored for conventional battle in Europe. As such, it was generally unprepared for action in US Central Command’s area of responsibility and faced the logistical nightmare of moving required forces into the theater.23 But Saddam Hussein, among his numerous other failures, lacked a sense of strategic timing and failed to act before the coalition assembled a huge force. The United States cannot count on such a foolish adversary during the next war. Sweeping changes in US military doctrine and force structure since the Gulf War reveal a concerted effort to take this lesson to heart. Joint doctrine has taken an expeditionary twist, and Air Force basic doctrine now admits that "the decline of both total force structure and worldwide bases has decreased the size of our forward presence and forced the US military to become primarily an expeditionary force—our service is able to rapidly project power over global distances and maintain a virtually indefinite ‘presence’ over an enemy."24 The Army is also engaged in an enormous metamorphosis, intended to create a "light and lean" force. Gen Eric Shinseki, Army chief of staff, testifying before Congress in 1999, outlined his vision: Our goal is to be able to deploy a combat-capable brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours after receipt of an order to execute liftoff, a division within 120 hours, and five divisions in 30 days. These forces will be light enough to deploy, lethal enough to fight and win, survivable enough to return safely home. They will be versatile enough to make peace or fight wars. They will be agile enough to transition from peacemaking to war fighting and back again quickly. And they will be lean and efficient enough to sustain themselves whatever the mission.25 Clearly, the US military understands the importance of being prepared to "do it again." As a result, we should be readier and more prepared for the next war than we were in the Gulf. Myth Number Eight—Others Paid for the Cost of the War The Gulf War was little more than a blip on the financial screen of the United States, especially in comparison to the cost of previous major wars. The highest estimate Dr. Hammond cites is $100 billion spent, half of which was paid by other governments—mostly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. But the real story, according to Dr. Hammond, is the long-term cost the United States will pay in terms of the wear and tear upon its equipment and manpower. This point is difficult to reconcile with his earlier claim that by 1997 the defense share of the US gross national product was the lowest since Pearl Harbor.26 A cost-benefit analysis tells the story beyond the economic costs. Americans have always inherently valued human cost over financial cost, as exemplified by Gen Colin Powell’s (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War) recommendation to use overwhelming force and expensive technology rather than engage the Iraqis in a conventional battle. As a result, the United States suffered only 146 combat fatalities, a tiny number compared to those in past wars and a pittance compared to Iraq’s losses. In addition to saving lives, the extra dollars spent in the Gulf also allowed the real-world testing of weapons and theories of force structure. It is impossible to measure how much these lessons contributed to wiser post–Gulf War military spending. Additionally, it is impossible to put an economic value on US gains in the world’s leadership quotient as a result of the Gulf War. Political leadership begat economic leadership, and for the entire decade following the Gulf War, the rest of the world looked to the US economy. In the meantime, the United States enjoyed its greatest peacetime economic expansion in history. Myth Number Nine—The Gulf War Represents an Almost Unblemished Record of Success, Superior Military Performance, and Accomplishment If this claim constitutes a myth at all, it is not considered as such among those who wear military uniforms. Officers who attend intermediate and senior service schools are bombarded with the glut of critical evaluations of the Gulf War. These writings provide excellent insight and unbiased lessons to be learned from the experience. Dr. Hammond cites three important "blemishes," including intelligence failures linked to targeting and battle-damage assessment, the pointless "Scud Hunt," and problems with fratricide.27 But all three of these, as well as others, are officially addressed in the GWAPS, which provides a balanced account of the war–– and the Air Force doesn’t appear to be paying mere lip service to them. The decade since the Gulf War saw a flood of doctrinal changes and institutional modifications intended to ensure that such failures are not repeated. One of the most notable of these has been the creation of a formal joint air operations center (JAOC)—a focal point designed to assess, plan, and execute the integrated targeting process in combat. A flexible JAOC, comprised of strategy, combat plans, combat operations, and mobility teams, may help address targeting problems in the next war. Numerous well-written books also detail the lessons of the Gulf War, warts and all. Those wishing to explore its political-military dimension should read The Commanders by Bob Woodward and Hollow Victory by Jeffrey Record. Military aspects are covered in The Generals’ War by Michael Gordon and Gen Bernard Trainor and Thunder and Lightning: Desert Storm and the Airpower Debates by Edward Mann. The biographies of Gen Colin Powell and Gen Norman Schwarzkopf provide additional, if one-sided, insight into the war. Those seeking an "almanac" version of the war should consult DOD’s Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, its final report to Congress. This 800-page volume contains a plethora of tactical information and an informative section on lessons learned. No war is perfect, and many people, both inside and outside the process, critiqued the Gulf War before "Myths" was published. Myth Number 10—The Promise of Airpower Was Finally Fulfilled The fulfillment of the promise of airpower depends on which airpower "promise" one has in mind. Dr. Hammond concedes that "airpower came far closer to achieving its goals and accomplishing our military aims than ever before," but he rightly points out that airpower alone was unable to close the deal without surface forces. On the other hand, it is also worth mentioning that the architect of the Gulf’s air campaign, Col John Warden, now retired from the Air Force, contends that airpower alone could have achieved victory after just another week of strategic attack.28 Current Air Force doctrine seems to have accepted Hammond’s notion, but Warden’s argument continues to stir up debate, as well as the parochial insecurities of the sister services. Meanwhile, the American psyche and the political leadership seem to have reached a dangerous conclusion about airpower. Dr. Hammond was prophetic in proposing this myth, but he targeted the wrong audience. Since the Gulf War, Western politicians— not military professionals—seem to have over-simplified airpower’s effectiveness, even implying the existence of a new paradigm. They apparently believe that airpower is a panacea that can routinely achieve military objectives through precision engagement, and with only limited collateral damage or friendly casualties. This unsophisticated view of airpower was evident in 1999 during Allied Force, when North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) leadership publicly announced it would attempt to remove Serbian forces from Kosovo with air strikes exclusively. Military professionals, including airmen, disagreed with the strategy of ruling out surface engagements from the outset. Yet, at first glance the "paradigm" seemed to work. In reality, however, the air strikes were relatively ineffective, blurring the lines between political and military objectives and sometimes placing them in direct conflict with each other.29 Diplomatic breakdowns and the loss of Rus-sian support may have had more to do with Serbia’s surrender than the effects of airpower—but that’s another set of myths. Conclusion The "myths of the Gulf War" are generally not myths at all but "truths with asterisks." These asterisks are the genuine lessons that we must internalize so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Overall, the Gulf War was a successful effort, and the world is a better place because a militarily intact Iraq does not control Kuwait and its assets. Unfortunately, Saddam’s regime survived, but it continues to reinforce the military necessity of a powerful US presence in a region that includes two-thirds of the world’s known oil reserves. The first test of coalition warfare in the post–Cold War era was a major victory because of US diplomacy and military might. Yet, our greatest accomplishment may have been in showing military restraint when it counted. If the United States hopes to continue to lead the rest of the world, it must demonstrate that it can be trusted to accomplish the coordinated aims of the many, rather than embarking on selfish crusades. The United States suffered tough consequences in Korea and especially Vietnam when it tried to run its strategy "on the fly," since the fog of war led to changing objectives and confused ideas about the desired end state. Perhaps the most enduring lesson of the Gulf War is that placing predetermined political objectives before military aims was the right choice. Notes 1. Grant T. Hammond, "Myths of the Gulf War: Some ‘Lessons’ Not to Learn," Airpower Journal 12, no. 3 (Fall 1998): 6–18. 2. William Mitchell, Winged Defense: The Development and Possibilities of Modern Airpower—Economic and Military (1925; reprint, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1988), 16. 3. Hammond, 7. 4. Ibid., 15. 5. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976), 75. 6. Hammond, 8. 7. Ibid. 8. President George Bush, "The Deployment of US Armed Forces to Saudi Arabia," address, 8 August 1990, reprinted in Military Review, September 1991, 82. Additionally, for a full listing of United Nations Security Council resolutions, see DOD’s final report to Congress: Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, 1992), appendix B. 9. Hammond, 9. 10. Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, Gulf War Air Power Survey: Summary Report (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 1993), 79. 11. Ambassador Richard Butler, interview with Col Roman Hrycaj, Maxwell AFB, Ala., 29 November 2000. 12. Hammond, 10. 13. Keaney and Cohen, 223. 14. Hammond, 11. 15. DOD, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 703. 16. Brig Gen David Deptula, "Effects Based Operations," address to the Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Ala., 27 November 2000. 17. Hammond, 11. 18. Harris Poll Library, "Harris Interactive," Harris Poll no. 7, n.p., on-line, Internet, 26 January 2000, available from http://www.harrinteractive.com . 19. Ibid., Harris Poll no. 51, 6 September 2000. 20. Hammond, 11. 21. Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, The Generals’ War (New York: Little, Brown & Company, 1995), 25. 22. Hammond, 11. 23. For a synopsis of the nearly insurmountable logistics problems faced by US Central Command during Operation Desert Shield, see Gordon and Trainor, 54–74. 24. Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1, Air Force Basic Doctrine, September 1997, 32. 25. House, Status of Forces: Testimony to House Armed Services Committee, Statement by the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Gen Eric K. Shinseki, 21 October 1999, 106th Cong., 1st sess., 21 October 1999. 26. Hammond, 13. 27. Ibid., 15. 28. John Warden, The Air Campaign (New York: Excel Publishers, 1998), 158. 29. Earl A. Tilford, "Operation Allied Force and the Role of Airpower," Parameters, Winter 1999–2000, 28. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Contributor Lt Col Martin Wojtysiak (USAFA; MS, Auburn University) is chief of tanker operations and training, Headquarters Air Mobility Command, Scott AFB, Illinois. He previously served as KC-10 operations officer and commander of the 9th Air Refueling Squadron at Travis AFB, California, and as assistant air attaché, US Embassy, Islamabad, Pakistan. Colonel Wojtysiak is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and Air War College. Disclaimer The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University. IWS INFOCON Mailing List @ IWS - The Information Warfare Site http://www.iwar.org.uk